>that one sequel that shit all over the original
What's her name?
Risen is perhaps one of my favorite games of all time. I was relatively new to PC gaming, and hadn't played any Gothic games before it. It was the perfect wRPG, and felt like a real adventure with great combat and actions that have consequences.
I pre-ordered Risen 2 and it was such a terrible game. I actually became physically depressed because of how bad it was.
Risen 3 is out and I'm hesitantly optimistic. Don't know if I want to buy it or not.
It must have been really hard to fuck up such a simple concept.
I'm sorry, you must have posted in this thread by mistake.
I haven't played Mafia 2 but Chrono Cross is a terrible mish-mash of shit story and too many characters that serve no purpose other than collecting.
The party member select screen might as well have been called "Steven's PC" or whatever the pokemon storage thing is called.
I'm extraordinarily pleased with it. Seriously, unless you're Carolyn Petit or some other game reviewer that knows jack shit about games, you'll appreciate all the detail they put into it.
Great game, completely makes up for the second. Get it, now.
>there are people who honestly think Tomba 2 was bad
I want to live in this world where Tomba 2 is a bad game, I can't even imagine what the good games must be like in such a world
Portal 2. Aside from new mechanics, it was just "lol we can be randumb a second time and you'll still pay money for it! Eck's Dee! Eck's Dee!"
No but really, it was utter shit compared to the original.
>someone who already played it wants to play co-op with me
>mfw I haven't played it yet
>mfw that dumb bitch does everything and tells me where to go before I can even think about it
Puzzle co-op is the worst thing ever.
What is Super Paper Mario? Didn't shit all over the original, just wasn't nowhere as good as the first two.
I literally only played the first five levels of co-op with my friends 10 year old brother on his PS3. Its not bad, but the co-op should've been an add on for the first game. Maybe more gels in the main game would've been a nice addition, as well as keeping it gameplay based rather than story based.
There's more to Planetside than shooting people. SOE forgot this, despite the PS2 team having many people from the first game's team.
While not an bad game it certainly doesn't live up to the hype
>that horrid level design
>nearly every boss is humanoid and wields a weapon
>causal shit, 4 ring slots, warping to every bonfire from the beginning, boss weapon is a simple exchange for boss' soul
>torch concept dead
Guild wars 2 being so shitty was such a disappointment, I sunk so much time in gw and loved the fuck out of it.
Ya know what, looking back on it Jade Cocoon didn't wasn't a bad game but it was bad as a sequel to jade cocoon.
Does "shit on" mean ruined, or blown it the fuck out in terms of quality?
>not enjoying seeing how soldiers healed themselves before nanomachines
>not enjoying the camp system
>not enjoying eating
>not enjoying those sweet EVA boobs
>you'll never suck the cum out of her pussy after a dozen guys climax in her
>"Hey, you know what we should do for our next game in this popular horror franchise?"
>"Make it into a co-op Call of Duty and remove all the horror elements"
>"You my friend are a fucking genius"
you have to think 4 dimensionally!
Deus Ex Invisible War. it killed the franchise for 9 years. Granted we got DEHR, which was a great game, but damn, IW almost ruined the franchise forever. I can't believe how disappointed I am to this day.
This alone should make you hate Microsoft.
How is it a bad statement? It's more informative than just saying that a game is bad, since another person may like the new style. For example, Dead Space 1 being a survival horror, while 2 and 3 had much greater focuses on being an action thriller, especially considering the co-op in DS3
Because the one who determines what is good X game is the guy that made X games. You are entitled to have opinion about whether a game is good or bad. But stating that a game is bad X game isnt something you should be deciding.
As your example. Is DS a good game, just bad DS game or are DS2 and DS3 good games but bad DS games? Obviously neither. The game just changed course and it was meant to do that. DS was a good DS game, but they wanted to move it more toward action so they did in sequels, which were good DS games, because DS had already moved.
I overly complicated it, but I hope you get my meaning.
Empire Earth 3
Epic Mickey 2
>Super Mario World
God damn what a shit game.
3rd time's the charm right
Other M was so bad it put the series into a coma and retconned every other game
I know I'm being baited, but
>Street Fighter 2
>Age of Empires 2
>Saint's Row 2
>Assassin's Creed 2
>Red Dead Redemption
>Silent Hill 2
Yer full of shit.
I get your meaning, and I think it's completely wrong. I get the idea of changing the direction of a game, but what's the point of keeping the title if you're taking it in a completely different direction? Going from survival horror to third-person action is anything but a slight change, and it affects all aspects of the game's design with the exception of the art style. Because of this, they are completely different games, which can be fit into different genres entirely, and if it's a different genre, why keep the same title?
Look at other games that have done this, Halo, and Metal Gear. All of these game series have had games that were dramatic departures from previous games, Revengeance, and Reach. The thing is, both are spin off titles, they aren't main line titles, so outside of lore and art style, there isn't any previous expectation for them. However with a sequel, there's an expectation of it to be a continuation of the previous game, with similar mechanics, hopefully slightly altered for the better, and to just generally be better, but when you go in a completely different direction outside of a spin off game, you end up with people who buy your game on the idea that it's a direct sequel, and get a completely different game instead. In your opinion, this may not be a bad thing, but I personally believe that taking series' in a different direction should be done with spin offs, or re-titling the series, as just leaving it as though nothing changed when they did doesn't really help anyone, and there's no benefit for it to either side.
>tfw I loved that game and beat it 5 times
I didn't even know it was a sequel to something.
Jagged Alliance 2
Cataclysm was definitely better than the original gameplay wise, but I wouldn't say it shat over the original. I felt that the original's narrative worked a lot better and Cataclysm lacked the same sense of wonder.
Alright let me just get the biggest offenders out of the way.
Command and Conquer Tiberian Twilight 4
Red Alert 3
Mass Effect 3
CoD MW2 and every CoD game since then as well
Legend of Zelda Skyward Sword
Metroid Other M
Paper Mario Sticker Star
Supreme Commander 2
Any F.E.A.R. game outside the original
Total War Rome II
Dungeon Keeper 3
...anything modern EA and Capcom is making outside of Monster Hunter, pretty much.
Absolute 10/10 battle system. It's what XIII should have been.
Completely blew X's out of the water.
>battle system based on turn order and manipulating turn order
>enemys turn will be after 5 more moves from you
>attack with auron
>enemy attacks anyway
Say what you want about 4, but this game is offensive in its badness
>dark souls 1
>no horrid level design - great levels such as demon ruins, lost izalith, crystal caves, new londo
>great bosses such as 3 asylum demons, capra and taurus, seath, bed of chaos, pinwheel
>pseudo-difficult stuff like ariamis or solaire's quest that you would never figure out on your own without gamefaqs
>cut content packaged and sold as dlc
2 wasn't as good as 1 but it wasn't a fucking slap in the face to the original.
It still felt like Mass Effect even if it was a less focused game and with some poor design choices. ME3 was just bad for multiple reasons.
Game suffered from no free-roaming, but it was still the best Metroid game for atmosphere
running into SA-X was an amazing feeling, they really did a damn good job with that game's entire atmosphere
It's absolute shait.
Your opinion is wrong.
What are you talking about? There are only three games in the franchise.
Just like how Persona started with 3.
Both are excellent games.
First one felt tedious is some parts but still amazing.
Second game did almost everything right, except some minor details, like the lack of details in some characters and stuff.